All language subtitles for Guerras.Ajenas.2016.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX].english

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

We have seen that
the narcotics traffickers

hate aerial eradication.

And the enemy is saying
they hate the spray.

They're avoiding it.
They're moving away from it.

They shoot at the airplanes.

They do everything possible
to prevent aerial eradication

because they know
it's effective.

They know that it has hurt
their bottom line.

It's a myth to think
that all coca cultivators

in Colombia
are poor campesinos

who have no other form
of viable livelihood.

That's true for some,

but it doesn't paint
the whole picture.

A lot of this
is a very, very cynical,

intentional effort
by organized crime

to find new areas

and to bring people in
to do that work for them.

Enemy number one
in the United States

is drug abuse.

Drugs are menacing
our society.

And by next year, our spending
for drug law enforcement

will have more than tripled
from its 1981 levels.

Our 1990 drug budget

totals almost $8 billion,

the largest increase
in history.

Our outrage against
drugs unites us.

I think there are a couple
of things that were at stake

from an American
perspective

that came to bear
at that time.

Narco trafficking.

You know,
we were in a phase

were narcotics were flooding
into the country.

I think the reason Colombia

with US support
continues to engage

in aerial eradication
is because it works.

I mean, the facts
speak for themselves.

Again, if you could
kind of abstract yourself

and pretend you're a Martian
looking at this,

it's just kind of
unimaginable.

I mean, the number of people
in Colombia killed

by US tobacco is way beyond
the number of Americans

killed by Colombian cocaine.

If you go to a country
like China,

it's astronomically more.

Okay, do they have a right
to come to the United States

and carry out chemical warfare
in North Carolina

and Kentucky because they have
a tobacco problem

and it's coming
from here? No.

I mean, you can't even
speak the words.

Eradicating coca
using aircraft

is far safer,
far more efficient,

and less costly
and less dangerous

to personnel--

Colombian and US personnel
than manual eradication.

I think they have
to fly 50 met--

no more than 50 meters
above the level of the ground.

Is that correct? 150?
Okay, 150.

Woman:
150? I thought it was,
like, 40...

Yeah, let's get back
to you on that

'cause I think it's--
it's definitely less than 150.

I've been down
to Southern Colombia
and seen some of it.

It's chemical warfare
which is driving huge numbers

of peasants off their land,
destroying their crops.

Colombia has
the second biggest

refugee problem in the world
after Sudan.

And they're driven
into urban slums,

and multinational
corporations come in

and start mining
and so on and so forth.

In 2007 there were about
140,000 hectares

under coca production,
and now there's half of that.

And that matters a lot.

Less coca means
less cocaine

means less drugs
going anywhere else
in the world.

And of the 70,000 hectares
that remain in production,

more than half of them
are in areas where
we can't spray,

which tells you something.

That means the people
who are producing the coca

are moving them into areas
where spraying can't take place

because the spraying
is effective.

They have been moving
their coca cultivation

away from areas where
we're allowed to spray aerially.

It's gotten to the point
where now

51% of all coca
being cultivated in Colombia

has moved
to indigenous reserves,

national parks,
or the border buffer zone
with Ecuador,

all of those areas where
we are not allowed to spray

by arrangement with
the Colombian government.

There's some recent
supposedly academic studies

that are out
that are challenging

the cost effectiveness
of aerial eradication

or the efficacy
of the actual--

the destruction
of coca plants.

Those studies
are not yet tested

in a peer reviewed journal.

They-- we believe
they lack...

a certain rigor
and they haven't yet been

kind of examined.

There's a myth
that glyphosate

causes human health
issues or problems.

Glyphosate is one
of the most heavily studied
chemicals on the planet.

There's a raft
of academic literature

in the US
and here in Colombia

that demonstrates
that glyphosate

has no appreciable impact
on human health.

This study
looked at the strength
of scientific evidence

that glyphosate
causes cancer.

The conclusion
was that glyphosate
probably causes cancer.

Guyton:
We identify a working group
of the world's best experts.

They look at studies
in humans.

These are studies of people
who were exposed

in their jobs
or in their communities.

Based on
this review process,

the working group of experts
chose to classify

glyphosate as group 2A,
probably carcinogenic to humans.

Andrews:
The idea that glyphosate

creates some kind of
permanent economic--

environmental damage
is actually not true.

In about 90 days the components
of glyphosate break down

to chemicals that actually
serve as fertilizers

that actually enhance
plant growth.

In terms of our security
assistance relationship
with Colombia,

it's very much a mutual benefit
for both countries.

Colombia has gained access
to US expertise

and support in fortifying
its own efforts

against organized crime
and illegal armed groups

and narcotics trafficking.